F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country B as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player R

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country P as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country B as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player R I. Facts of the case 1. The country P Football Federation confirmed that the player, Player R (hereinafter: the player), born in January 1989, was registered as an amateur with its affiliated clubs: - Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) as from 8 October 2003 until 27 September 2004, - Club S as from 1 September 2008 until 13 August 2009, - Club P as from 13 August 2009 until 30 August 2010, - Club E as from 31 August 2010 until 24 July 2011. 2. The player passport issued by the country P Football Federation indicates that also in between the periods stipulated above, the player was at all times registered as an amateur. 3. The football season in country P lasts from 1 July until 30 June of the following year. 4. According to a written confirmation of the country B Football Association, the player was registered with its affiliated club Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 11 July 2011 as an amateur and confirmed that the Respondent communicated on 14 June 2012 having signed a professional contract with the player. 5. The country P Football Federation confirmed that the Claimant belonged to the category IV (indicative amount of EUR 10,000 per year within UEFA) during the time when the player was registered with it. 6. The country B Football Association confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) during the season when the player was registered with the club. 7. On 14 August 2013, the player’s transfer from the Respondent to the Club D, from country S was completed in the Transfer Matching System (TMS). According to the player passport uploaded by the country B Football Association within the scope of the pertinent transfer instruction in the TMS, the player was registered as a professional with the Respondent during the seasons 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. 8. On 8 November 2011, the Claimant contacted FIFA requesting training compensation in relation to the transfer of the player to the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 10,000 plus 5% default interest p.a. on said amount as from the 31st day of the player’s registration with the Respondent. 9. In support of its claim, the Claimant indicated that it was informed by the Respondent that it considered that the player was an amateur as it only signed a “formation contract” on 31 July 2011. However, the Claimant stated that in fact the Respondent signed the player as a professional and that the official labelling of the contract as “formation contract” should not have an influence on its actual nature. 10. In addition to that, the mere fact that a country P player moves to country B in order to play football may only be possible on the assumption that he was earning sufficient remuneration to cover his daily expenses. 11. In connection with this aspect, the Claimant quoted an interview given by the Respondent’s managing director related to the player and to the contract with the club, which also suggests that the player was signed as a professional: “The agreement signed today, the only possible where the three parties at that time could reach a consensus on all aspects: contractual, financial and other conditions.” 12. Finally, the Claimant indicated that according to the regulations of the country B Football Association, there is no regulatory basis for formal non-professional contracts in country B football. 13. In its reply, the Respondent stated that on 31 July 2011 the player was only signed on a “scholarship contract” as an amateur, whereas it signed the player as a professional only after the player’s 23rd birthday as from 1 July 2012, which is why no training compensation is due. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a copy of the relevant “scholarship contract” which ran from 1 August 2011 until 30 June 2012 and indicated that the player was i) an amateur player and ii) was to receive an amount of EUR 400 on a monthly basis (EUR 300 for “nutrition”, EUR 50 for “transport” and EUR 50 for “sports equipment and the maintenance of such sport equipment”). 14. Equally, the Respondent submitted a copy of the professional contract of the player which ran from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2014. Said contract, inter alia, provided for a gross monthly salary of EUR 2,000 and the payment of variable match bonuses. Moreover, the professional contract stipulated the payment of a “sign-on-fee” in favor of the player in the amount of EUR 45,000 for the season 2012/2013 and in the amount of EUR 60,000 for the season 2013/14. 15. Furthermore, the Respondent held that the country B Football Association recognizes formal non-professional contracts such as the contract concluded with the player and made reference to a DRC decision dated 28 July 2005 according to which the status of a player at the association has to be respected by FIFA and cannot be disputed. Said decision stipulates inter alia the following: “In continuation, the Chamber pointed out that in disputes concerning training compensation, the nature of a contract between a player and a club is determined by the relevant association. As a principle, the Chamber will not enter into the question concerning the status of the player. In such case, the autonomy of the Association must be respected by the Dispute Resolution Chamber, and therefore, the status of the registration of such player at the Association shall be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the conditions stipulating the payment of training compensation have been fulfilled.” 16. Moreover, the player was allegedly only “reimbursed at an acceptable height (400 EUR per month – travel expenses included)”, which ”corresponds with the expenses the player effectively incurs in return to his training activity”. Hence, according to art. 2 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), the player should be regarded as an amateur. 17. In addition to the above, the Respondent indicated that, according to the “scholarship contract”, the player did not have the obligation to participate in professional games, which allegedly also indicates that the player was not signed as a professional. 18. Furthermore, the Respondent indicated that the quote from the interview with the club’s managing director was falsely translated, as it was actually said: “The present agreement, was the only possibility on which the three parties could agree on that moment…” This allegedly also “affirms that there is no other contract than the scholarship contract signed on the 31th of July 2011 and that the three parties weren’t ready to sign a professional contract at that moment.” 19. Finally, the Respondent argued that the amount claimed by the Claimant is disproportionate. In this context, the Respondent pointed to the general purpose of training compensation and provided its own calculation as to the actual training costs the Claimant had allegedly occurred during the time the player was registered with the latter club. 20. In its replica, the Claimant stressed that that the player on 10 January 2012 entered a written contract with the Respondent, in which the player was addressed as “a full-time paid sportsman”. Therefore the player was allegedly a professional after signature of said contract. 21. In addition, the Claimant held that the Respondent has not given sufficient proof for the player’s alleged amateur status as they only provided registration forms where the player was labelled as an amateur, instead of an official player passport or written confirmations from the country B Football Association. 22. In this context, the Claimant stated that the regulations of the country B Football Association distinguish between “contractual players” and “amateurs”, which is why there was no such thing as an amateur player with a written contract. Therefore, the player could only be considered a professional. 23. Furthermore, the Claimant raised doubts as to why the player would sign a scholarship contract resp. a “Contrat de Formation” with the Respondent in the first place, as the player was already 22 years old, had already played his fourth season as a senior and was therefore “no longer in a proper age of going to school”. 24. In this connection, the Claimant pointed out that the player was an important member of the senior squad, playing 34 out of the 41 official matches during the season of 2011/2012, which allegedly shows that the player already had the same playing and training level as the other professional players, which should also indicate that the training of the player had already ended, contrary to the content of the scholarship contract. 25. As for the remuneration of the player, the Claimant referred to art. 528 of the regulations of the country B Football Association, which states that “the contract of a non-amateur player must not provide an annual remuneration inferior to € 2.047,60”, whereas the player received a so called reimbursement of his expenses for an annual amount of EUR 4,800. Bearing this in mind and in accordance with art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations the player should therefore be considered a professional. 26. Finally, the Claimant stated that its claim was not disproportionate as it was in accordance with art. 6 par. 1b of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 27. In its final position, the Respondent admitted on the one hand that the player had one good season in 2011/2012, but saw his performances diminish during the following seasons. This and the fact that until the age of 23 no other team had made a professional contract offer to the player, allegedly shows that the player’s training was in fact not yet finished. 28. Moreover, the Respondent objected to the Claimant’s interpretation of the regulations of the country B Football Association, stating that “a player is qualified as a professional player if he engages oneself to organize his footballing activity as a professional occupation and, if the player is bound by a contract notified to the country B Football Association that commits the player to respond to all convocations of the club and to participate to all football matches”. Furthermore, “the country B regulations stipulate that a professional player has to earn a salary of 8.850 EUR per year (Royal Decree of 19.06.2011 in execution of the Law of 24 February 1978). In this context, the Respondent repeated that the player did not have the obligation to participate in official matches of the club, that he did not organize his footballing activity by himself and that he did not earn the minimum salary of a professional player. 29. Besides, the Respondent stressed that according to the regulations of the country B Football Association, the status as a “contractual player” was not dependent on the existence of a written contract between the club and the player, but only of the status of the player, i.e. amateur or professional. Therefore the player could sign an amateur contract with the Respondent without being a “contractual player”, meaning a professional player. Hence, the player had to be considered an amateur until his 23rd birthday when he signed his first professional contract. 30. As for the definition of a professional player according to the Regulations, the Respondent insisted that the player did not receive a salary but a reimbursement of his expenses, which mostly covered for the expenses for meals (EUR 10 per day), transport before and after training (EUR 1.6 per day) as well as for equipment and maintenance of equipment (EUR 1.6 per day). 31. In addition to the foregoing, the Respondent stated that the country B Football Association has qualified the player as an amateur as from 4 July 2011 until 1 July 2012, which, according to the jurisprudence of the DRC of 28 July 2005 (cf. point 14), has to be respected as “the nature of a contract between a player and a club is determined by the relevant association who has the full autonomy to determine the status of the player”. Therefore, the amateur status of the player cannot be disputed. 32. Finally, the Respondent reiterated its position that the amount of training compensation claimed was disproportionate as its effective training costs were allegedly much lower than the amounts stipulated in Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 33. After being asked by FIFA to provide its comments regarding art. 6 par 3. of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Claimant stated that it was not the last club where the player was registered before being registered with the Respondent. 34. Furthermore, the Claimant indicated that it was a purely amateur club during the seasons the player was registered with it and provided a written confirmation of the country P Football Federation in this regard. Therefore, the Claimant did not have and still does not have the financial resources to propose a professional contract to the player. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. In a first instance, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 8 November 2011. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2008 (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 11 July 2011, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 November 2011, the 2010 edition of the said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 3. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation concerning training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player was born in January 1989 and was registered with the Claimant as from 8 October 2003 until 27 September 2004 as an amateur player. Equally, the Chamber took note that the player was registered with Club S, from country P as from 1 September 2008 until 13 August 2009, with Club P as from 13 August 2009 until 30 August 2010 and with Club E as from 31 August 2010 until 24 July 2011, each time as an amateur player. 6. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the Claimant asserted that it was entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 10,000, as the player was transferred to a club belonging to a different association before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday and registered with the relevant club as a professional. 7. Equally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim for the payment of training compensation, stating that the player was registered with it as an amateur as he was only signed on a “scholarship contract”, whereas he signed his first contract as a professional only after the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the aforementioned “scholarship contract” which ran from 1 August 2011 until 30 June 2012, indicated that the player was an amateur player and provided for a monthly salary of EUR 400, thereof the amount of EUR 300 earmarked for “nutrition”, EUR 50 for “transport” and EUR 50 for “sports equipment and the maintenance of such sport equipment”, i.e. a yearly salary of EUR 4,800. 8. In addition to that, the Chamber took note of the written confirmation of the country B Football Association, in which it attested that the Respondent, on 14 June 2012, signed a professional contract with the player, valid as of 1 July 2012. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that said contract, inter alia, provided for a monthly gross salary of EUR 2,000 and the payment of variable match bonuses. Moreover, the professional contract stipulated the payment of a “sign-on-fee” in favor of the player in the amount of EUR 45,000 for the season 2012/2013 and in the amount of EUR 60,000 for the season 2013/14. 9. In this respect, the Chamber firstly deemed it important to establish whether the player held the amateur status or the professional status at the time he was registered with the Respondent or at least prior to the end of the 2011/2012 season. 10. In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that the contract of 31 July 2011 contained a provision stipulating that the player would render his services to the Respondent as an amateur player and that, according to said contract, the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 400 from the Respondent as indemnities for the costs related to nutrition, transport and sports equipment. 11. In this context, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, which stipulates that “a professional is a player who has a written contract with a club and is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he effectively incurs. All other players are considered to be amateurs”. On this basis, the Chamber considered that an amount such as EUR 400 per month could not be considered, from the outset, as insufficient to cover the expenses incurred by a player in country B. In fact, assessing the player’s status solely on his remuneration for the 2011/2012 season, in the Chambers view, would rather suggest that EUR 400 would be sufficient to cover all football related expenses. Nevertheless, considering the extensive argumentation of the Respondent and, in particular, the diverging information from the country B Football Association, the members of the Chamber deemed it necessary to further analyse the circumstances of the matter at stake as well as the documentation at hand. 12. The Chamber recalled the content of art. 528 of the regulations of the country B Football Association, according to which a player is to be regarded as “non-amateur” if he has a written contract according to the regulations of the country B Football Federation and if he receives a yearly salary of at least EUR 2,047.60. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled the contents of the country B “Royal decree of 19 June 2011” and the “Law of 24 February 1978”, according to which a player is to be regarded as a professional if he receives a yearly salary of at least EUR 8,850. 13. With this established, the Chamber asserted that by earning a yearly salary of EUR 4,800, i.e. a salary higher than EUR 2,047.60 and less than EUR 8,850, the player had the status of “non-amateur”, according to the regulations of the country b Football Association and the statutory laws of country B. Consequently, notwithstanding the fact that the definition contained in the Regulations regarding the status of the player would prevail as opposed to any national regulations, the Chamber observed that the country B statutory laws and the country B Football Association regulations did not facilitate the appreciation as to whether the player is to be considered an amateur or a professional as per art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations. 14. Given the “non-amateur” status of the player, and bearing in mind that the Regulations in art. 2 par. 2 only distinguish between amateur and professional contracts whereas the status of “non-amateur” is not recognized as a category of its own, the Chamber concluded that concrete circumstances of the individual case, i.e. factors outside of the wording and the content of the “scholarship contract” had to be taken into consideration in order to determine the status of the player during the season 2011/2012, i.e. the status of the player before the end of the season of his 23rd birthday. 15. In this context, the Chamber recalled the Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of 28 July 2005, where it is stipulated that “(…) the nature of a contract between a player and a club is determined by the relevant association (…)” and that “the autonomy of the Association must be respected by the Dispute Resolution Chamber, and therefore, the status of the registration of such player at the Association shall be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the conditions stipulating the payment of training compensation have been fulfilled.” In this context, the Chamber made reference to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations which establishes that “within the scope of the proceedings pertaining to the application of these regulations, FIFA may use any documentation or evidence generated by or contained in TMS or obtained by FIFA TMS GmbH on the basis of their investigation powers (cf. Annexe 3, article 7 paragraph 4) in order to properly assess the issue at stake.” On this basis, the members of the Chamber pointed to the player passport which was uploaded by the country B Football Federation in connection with the subsequent transfer of the player from the Respondent to the Club D, from country S. In said player passport, the country B Football Association stated that the player was already registered as a professional during the season 2011/2012. 16. At this stage, the Chamber formed the belief that already based on the aforementioned circumstances, it could be established that the player was already a professional during the duration of the “scholarship contract” with the Respondent. However, given the extensive argumentation of the parties in the present matter, the Chamber also based its decision on the following circumstances. 17. Furthermore, and turning its attention to the additional argumentation of the Claimant in this regard, the Chamber observed that the player and the Respondent signed the “scholarship contract” on 31 July 2011, i.e. only five months before the player turned 23. Moreover, the Chamber pointed to the undisputed fact that the player had already participated in 34 out of the 41 official matches for the first team of the Respondent during the seasons 2011/2012. Hence, the Chamber observed that the player had played a substantial number of matches with the Respondent as well as that he was an important player for the Respondent during the season 2011/2012, a fact recognized by the Respondent itself. In the Chamber’s view, these sporting elements rather speak in favour of the argument of the Claimant that the player was in fact considered as a professional by the Respondent as of the conclusion of the contract dated 31 July 2011. 18. Subsequently, the Chamber drew its attention to both the contents of the “scholarship contract” and the professional contract signed between the player and the Respondent on 14 June 2011, and, in this regard, particularly focused on the monthly salary provided for in the “scholarship contract” as well as on the financial details of the professional contract. In this context, the Chamber recalled that, during the duration of the “scholarship contract”, the player received a monthly remuneration of EUR 400. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the professional contract due to enter into force on the first day of the season of the player’s 24th birthday provided for a gross salary of approximately EUR 24,000 per year as well as a “sign-on-fee” in the amount of EUR 45,000 for the season 2012/2013. In this respect, the Chamber found it worthwhile to underline that not only was the player’s monthly remuneration being multiplied by five as of 1 July 2012, but that a “sign-on-fee” amounting to almost twice the amount of the yearly salary is rather unusual in player contracts. Again, bearing in mind that the player only received a salary of EUR 400 before signing the contract for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 seasons, the Chamber formed the belief that by suddenly being awarded with such a raise in salary and a considerably high “sign-on-fee” upon signature of the second contract, it could not be excluded that, the player was also compensated for accepting a lower salary in the “scholarship contract” for the 2011/2012 season as an attempt to circumvent the possible obligation of paying training compensation to the player’s former club(s). Consequently, the Chamber concurred in the conclusion that the aforementioned provided a further indication that the player was already a professional during the season 2011/2012. 19. Equally, the Chamber highlighted that the second element contained in said art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, i.e. the existence of a written contract, is met. 20. In conclusion, taking into consideration the remuneration received by the player as of August 2011, that the country B Football Association in the player passport stated that the player was registered as a “professional” (cf. point II.15), taking into account the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations as well as the circumstances in this particular matter as illustrated above (cf. points II.17 and II.18), the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that the player was in fact already registered as a professional during the season 2011/2012, i.e. during the duration of the “scholarship contract” with the Respondent. 21. Having established the above, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to cases regarding training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, when a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the player is registered for the first time as a professional, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that the club with which the player is registered is responsible for paying training compensation within 30 days of registration to every club with which the player has previously been registered and that has contributed to his training starting from the season of his 12th birthday. 22. The aforementioned having been established, the Chamber then referred to art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which contains special provisions regarding players moving from one association to another association inside the territory of the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA). In this regard, the Chamber indicated that, since the player moved from one association to another association inside the territory of the EU, said article is applicable. Hence, the Chamber concluded that art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations applies in the case at hand as a lex specialis. 23. However, in this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, in casu, a possible obligation to offer the player a contract in compliance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations would in principle lie with the former club of the player and not with the Claimant. As stated in art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, said provision is without prejudice to the right of training compensation of the player’s previous club(s). 24. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant. 25. Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 5 January 1989 and was registered with the Claimant as from 8 October 2003 until 27 September 2004 as an amateur. 26. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the player was a professional while being registered with the Respondent (cf. points I.7 and II.15). 27. On as from 8 October 2003 until 27 September 2004. account of the above and in accordance with art. 20 in combination with Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber considered that the Claimant is, thus, entitled to receive training compensation for the period 28. In view of all of the above and taking into account the amount claimed, the Chamber decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 10,000 to the Claimant as training compensation in relation to the registration of the player with the Respondent. 29. Moreover, taking into account the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent has to pay interest at a rate of 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as from as of 1 August 2011 until the date of effective payment. 30. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 31. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 10,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000 (cf. table in Annexe A). 32. As a result, and considering that the case at hand did not compose especially complex factual or legal issues, the Chamber determined that the amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. 33. Taking into account that the Claimant is the successful party in the proceeding, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 10,000 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on said amount as of 1 August 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned amount plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 2,000 are to be paid by the Respondent within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2 is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives